JY and Steve; Great discussion, thank you! I am sooo tired of hearing the MWC/Pac12 should have merged and would have been a better conference. Everyone knows that the Pac12 did NOT want to be affiliated with remaining MWC schools which, quite frankly are low value. Like both of you, I don’t believe this will be dismissed. I don’t believe that the MWC wants any part of this case going to trial, as I am sure the Pac12 holds the “smoking gun” that will blow up in the face of the MWC! The MWC will not want any part of discovery. I want not bet against the Pac12 attorneys who shredded the other 10 Pac12 schools in the original case in Washington. In the end, in my opinion, the Pac12 will win based on the Sherman Antitrust Act OR there will be a settlement for a much lower amount. Thanks for continuing to cover this legal case.
Don't agree with the "they should have just combined and would be a strong conference" point. They'd be a bloated conference with a lot of fat. The problem with the MWC was half the schools were investing and taking it seriously and half were trying to get by Sun Belt style. The teams that left (largely) are the teams that want to take football seriously and try to compete at a high level.
Agreed. The very fact that the 5 programs leaving account for 17 MW Titles in football and the entire remaining MWC only accounts for a combined total of 1 puts a major spotlight on the disparity. Add in things like 4 of the remaining MWC programs that can't consistently average 18K in home attendance, have equally poor TV viewership numbers and it's a clear case of separation between the top and the bottom.
Just spending a lot of money on football doesn’t correlate to winning games. IE: Northern Illinois spends 1/4th to 1/2 of what the new PAC-12 schools spend and the Huskies W-L record over the past fifteen seasons is 118-76 with 12 bowl appearances including an appearance in the Orange Bowl
@@markcarbonaro6524 No, but it does often generate more media revenue, better recruiting, ability to recruit and retain a quality coaching staff and ensure that the program continues to stay in the black from a financial standpoint (ie fan attendance, merchandise sales, donations) Northern Illinois has done a great job on a tiny budget, but ultimately the biggest reason they are leaving the MAC is because they can no longer support their athletics department with what they are currently getting. You can definitely do more with less, but there is a point where you simply can't maintain, let alone build without additional funding and expenditures.
@@markcarbonaro6524 Correct, and NIU has done a great job with a shoestring budget, BUT even they recognized that they couldn't continue on MAC revenue if they want to move forward. You can definitely do more with less but at some point if you want to grow you need more revenue and more investment. This is where there is a rift between the programs staying and the programs leaving. The ones leaving by and large want to push and grow and develop, while most of the remaining programs are content to keep doing what they have done for the few decades and call it good.
We don’t know that Wazzu and Oregon State “went to” the Mountain West asking for a scheduling agreement. I distinctly recall that Gloria Navarez went to Pullman and visited with Kirk Shultz and Pat Chun, so it might have actually been the other way around. I think Gloria saw an opportunity to add WSU and OSU to the Mountain West (which is what she ultimately wanted) and she was trying to woo them in the beginning. When it was clear they weren’t necessarily interested in that, she took advantage of the impossible situation they were in. The PAC 2’s only other option would have been basically to cancel their football season since they were only left to create a football schedule in about 6 months or less. It’s clear that Gloria faught tooth and nail to squeeze the PAC 2 into submission and when that didn’t work, she resorted to doing everything she could to drain their account probably hoping THAT would force their hand. I think the PAC has a very solid argument about the antitrust law violation by the Mountain West. Why is it the Mountain West slapped poaching penalty fees on ONLY the PAC 2? The schools could have left for any other conference and those conferences wouldn’t have had to pay poaching penalties. Having that be a condition of the agreement was totally irrational and unfair to Oregon State and Washington State. It just screams desperation by Gloria Navarez.
A lot of good points that went completely unaddressed by the video. Judging by the name of the podcast, these guys have a side so I'm not entirely surprised.
The PAC is getting slapped with the poaching penalties because that was a condition they agreed to to get a football scheduling agreement. Mountain west gave them a life line for their 2024 football season but told them that if they took their schools, they would be charged the poaching fee. Otherwise, no scheduling agreement. Thats why other conferences dont have poaching fees. But the PAC did not argue duress, they argue anti trust.
@@TylerStout35The PAC filing from September does argue that the poaching penalty was imposed while the PAC was under duress. It’s literally in the first paragraph of the introduction.
@@TylerStout35 The thing that may come back to bite the MWC in all this was that they doubled the fee for the scheduling agreement for 2025. This means the PAC2 had no choice on short notice to either pay through the nose to play the MWC for one more season, pay way over the top for poaching fees or be forced to have no sports in 2025, which is a non-starter for any Division 1 college sports program.
I’m not a lawyer so I’m not positive how this works in the courtroom, but something that wasn’t directly mentioned that I think will be important in court is that the anti-trust isn’t just a PAC vs MW thing, it involves the MW restricting their own schools from leaving for a specific conference. Again, not a lawyer, just making an observation about who’s involved and what may be brought up since so often it’s framed as a conference vs conference thing.
By the way, I notice JY refusing to bring up that Gloria was upping the scheduling deal from 14 million in 2024 to 30 million in 2025. I believed that is what forced the break between the two.
Agreed. Look at the options 1) Pay through the nose to play a G5 league 2) Get slapped with Massive Poaching fees for trying to rebuild your conference 3) Kiss your sports goodbye for 2025 4) Take a hit to the value of your brand by joining the MWC with a minimum of 4 programs that can't even get 18K home attendance and have TV numbers that wouldn't be impressive even by C-USA standards.
BS! The pac 2 needed to bring schools in by 2026 to remain a conference. Even if the contract remained the same, that would bring them to the end of 2025 and less than a year to build the conference where at that point exit fees for the MW members would've been $34M+ per school, which would've made it a lot less likely they would've joined.
I hope this gets settled soon. I want the Pac 7 to get on with expansion, new tv contract and becoming the clear cut 5th best conference........ if they add the 4 from the AAC along with U Conn, St. John's, St. Mary's and one other BB only school, that is about the best possible outcome.
PAC is spending 💰 it will show in play on the field and facilitaties and when TV deal gets bigger than the AAC Memphis Tulane & Texas St Will get them to 12
The PAC2 received $50 Million from the departing 10 schools or $5 million a school. The MWC wants $55 Million for 5 schools or $11 Million a school. In essence the MWC thinks BSU, FSU, SDSU, CSU and USU are worth more than twice USC, UCLA, UW, UO, UA etc. Then the exit fees get added to the poaching fees (separate lawsuit by the departing MWC teams against the MWC). If the MWC does prevail I still see these fees getting greatly reduced which is all the PAC wants and therefore "wins". In addition, the teams the MWC has added, prevent a merger of the two conferences as the MWC has hurt itself with the new schools they have added.
Agreed. I dont see how the damages to the MW amount anything higher than the exit fees. You might even argue the damages are less still if they get a good tv contract and considering theyve already reloaded on members. And,I've yet to see any theorizing on how they get around the whole "double dipping" argument.
The PAC had NO exit fees because the TV deal had expired. The money they got was money that was owed to them from the TV deal, CFP/Bowl money and NCAA tourney credits.
@@jesterscorner879 So? The exit fees are not tied to the current TV deal being in place. It's based on actual payouts from the year prior to their exit.
Wasn't keeping UNLV and Air Force in the MW contingent on distributing all the exit and poaching fees? If PAC12 wins the anti-trust case and poaching fees are unenforceable, will the MW still be able to keep it's promise to UNLV and Air Force? In other words, if the MW loses in court, they could also be losing membership.
That is a real factor here. If they can't make good on their promises, UNLV and Air Force have a legitimate out (as technically so do the remaining members of the MWC).
@@jackmatheson4671 It's very unlikely that Texas State would join the MW as they have already turned them down and even less likely after the 2 most valuable remaining brands bolted. NM State would be a possibility at that point but UNM sure wouldn't be happy.
Looks like the Pac -12 is in a good position and will not have to pay. Combine that with the 5 leaving schools also not paying the full amount of exit fees and you get a hamstrung MW that can't afford to pay AFA and UNLV the millions to get them to stay. As a result UNLV moves to the Pac with AFA moving to the ACC. Eek for the MW.
@@ABQREDorGREEN We'll just have to wait and see, but I won't be surprised if the MW doesn't come close to getting the tens of millions it think it's going to get.
Like everyone else here, I'm just going to wait and see how this plays out. It's up to both sides of this issue to come up with 1000% concrete evidence of what they're claiming to be the case. Someone is telling the truth, and someone is, only at best, telling partial truths. Whatever a party claims, they need concrete proof. Can't just rely on words alone.
Making a schedule for the 2025-26 season isn't the same they had almost 2 years to find teams to play. When they signed the agreement with the MW, they had already been turned down by the big 10, acc and big 12 and less than a year to schedule opponents for every sport. There is a reason it was only a one year agreement.
The agreement was announced in December. At that point the PAC did not have time to go find something else and to say they did is completely unrealistic. The earliest they could have possibly begun putting together a schedule is September when Cal and Stanford announced they were leaving but they still had a suit against the leaving members that didnt resolve until December. So unless this lawsuit gets to discovery (which we all know it wont) we won't find out when negotiations started or when the poaching penalty was introduced. Id be more inclined to believe that the negotiations didnt start until there was a likely chance the pac was going to win their lawsuit against the leaving members and ive no idea when the poaching penalty was introduced. I think it's unfair of you guys to assume they were not under duress when there is so much we do not know.
There are 4 other G5 conferences. Are you telling me that it was impossible to make a one year deal for games with one or two of them? I don't buy it, if I was the judge I would want proof that they reached out and were rejected by the MAC or Sun Belt. Or that they demanded more.
@drgat6953 well think about it for a minute. They had yet to win the pac lawsuit and money was tight. Scheduling that late in the season requires a willing partner who wouldve had something to gain. It's not done out of the goodness of one's heart. Both the MW and AAC viewed the PAC as an opportunity. We do know that there were preliminary talks with the AAC. In November the AAC comissioner said they had conversations with the PAC2 and that his schools didnt think the travel costs made sense. And at this time we don't know if the PAC had enough funds cover their added travel costs for 1 or 2 seasons. By November/December it was too late to find another conference to work with. The transfer portal opened a day after this deal was announced (may have even been prior to it being finalized). OSU would likely have had too cancel the 2024 season if it hadn't been announced when it was. I imagine every tire was kicked. But I don't know if CUSA, the sunbelt, or the MAC were contacted. We might find out if it does get to discovery.
@rumblingcds I agree we will find out in discovery but if we find out that the MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA were reached out to. If they were not I think that torpedoes their case. As for the AAC and travel costs I think that was for all sports, as we know they took care of that with the WCC. In football the WSU and OSU have chartered flights for years. The cost difference between a 3 hour flight and a 5 hour flight isn't material.
@@drgat6953 i don't think it torpedoes their case. They could argue they were going down the line of conferences ACC, Big12, AAC, MW and simply ran out of time to explore other options by late November. Timing is what really matters. We were at the time trying to find a home for all our sports. If the MW wouldnt have charge so much we probably would have parked everything we could in the MW. The fact remains that the ACC, the Big12, and the AAC turned the remaining PAC down and the MW wasn't the only option the PAC explored.
To all those talking about a Merger: that's what the PAC-12 offerred to the MW. But Gloria Nevarez rejected it because it likely meant the bottom feeders of the MWC would be jettisoned, her job called into question, and/or the bottom feeding schools would have unequal revenue sharing. MWC would have also been dissolved in favor of PAC branding. And her ego would be bruised.
MWC cannot afford to lose this case, the PAC can because they would just add Texas St as their 8th member. If the MWC were to forfeit the poaching fees, UNLV is out the door, I wouldn’t be surprised if UTEP goes back to C-USA and Air-force were to join the AAC.
That's not true at all, the majority of the monies being paid to the schools are from the Exit fee's of the Deviant schools. The monies from the poaching fee's are simply bonus monies that will benefit the schools. Any way you slice it, the schools that stayed in the MWC are reaping lots of cash no matter what due to the terrible leadership of the Whack Pac.
You're forgetting the $85M+ in exit fees. If the MW, for whatever reason, loses that case then sure your doomsday scenario might play out. If the pac wins both then exit fees are obsolete, which won't bode well for the pac either.
@@jackmatheson4671 UTEP is thrilled for 3 reasons 1) The MWC is a better geographical fit than C-USA 2) They have history with many MW programs from the old WAC 3) Literally anything is an improvement from C-USA's pathetic media deal ($800K a year per school). That means the MWC could drop to $1.5 million per school and they would still nearly double their revenue over C-USA. If UNLV leaves it means that the MWC can't make good on it's promises for the extra cash (which also was a big part of why Air Force stayed) and Air Force would likely bolt for the AAC since the MWC would effectively done from a competitive value standpoint.
Quick slightly off topic question. Since Boise State is leaving the MW they don’t get any media deal money for this season right? If that is true does it apply to the Fiesta Bowl distributions?
@@scottyclayton2501all members will get thier cut for 2024 and 2025. However the MWC can withhold money to pay for the exit fees. Same applies for cfp and ncaa credits for 24/25.
Yes, the MWC is currently withholding bowl payouts from the departing members to hold them hostage for the exit fees. I don't see that being in the MWCs favor in this case.
@jesterscorner879 The deviants are demonstrating that the don't want to fulfill their obligations, the MWC is holding their feet to the fire, as they should. Simple stuff.
First off, I am not an attorney so I am not going to give an opinion on who has a leg to stand on and why or why not. Just keep in mind that the staying 2 in the PAC12 were left high and dry by the rest. It's not like the 10 traitors reached out to OSU and WSU to help them fill their upcoming 2024 schedules. Their options for filling their schedules were very limited. The 5 MWC schools now joining the PAC12 announced in 2024 and won't be doing so until 2026. The PAC12 made their intentions clear that they would rebuild and maintained that stance despite MWC wanting a different outcome. So the MWC is not under duress with 2 years before the switch and then another 2 years following that to reach the 8 required members. The MWC is holding thwir members hostage with the exit fees. I don’t see the PAC12 coming out unscathed but I do think the fees MWC is expecting is ridiculously exorbitant. I would have loved a merge myself.
How are they holding them hostage? Just pay the exit fees (which were approved years ago by the MWC board aka the University Presidents) and you're free to go.
@robarguello6895 it's real simple. If the MWC is so great their shouldn't be exit fees and poaching penalties. Their current media deal ends in 2026. Schools should want to be there and not be forced to stay there.
@@IknowthatBrent Every conference has exit fees. Also, the MWC exit fees aren't tied to the TV deal (unlike the old PAC), they're based on the average conference distribution (from the year prior to a schools exit) which includes not only TV money, but all revenue from the conference (CFP, tourney credits, bowl payouts, sponsorships, etc).
@@robarguello6895 $19 million per school for a 2 years notice plus $55 million in poaching fees for a conference that pays it's members a whopping $4 million a year for it's pathetic TV deal? I'm sorry but that is beyond excessive. That amounts to roughly $30 million dollars in exit/poaching fees per G5 school.
How many times in the past have two conferences created a scheduling agreement? Big Ten/ACC challenge? And how many times previously were those scheduling agreements made where it was foreseeable that one conference was looking to recruit member schools from the other conference?
I like the fact that you are using the PAC-X moniker… I’ve been pushing that. But if the ACC had offered, none of this would be an issue. ACC didn’t want OrSt or WashSt. They are a good fit in the Big12. I don’t know what happened there unless the corner4 cockblocked them.
The PAC wanted no part of certain schools in the mwc. The mwc didn’t want to leave those unwanted schools hanging without a conference. The PAC needs to get their TV deal done! If they are in the $15M range, they likely get the American 2 or 4 schools.
Not to be crass, but isn’t saying “they weren’t forced by the MW to sign” sort of like a landlord adding a mandatory BJ clause to my lease when he knows my choice is either that or homelessness? Like yeah sure I signed and yes he didn’t literally force me to sign, but he obviously took advantage of the known circumstances to add a clause that arguably had nothing to do with the lease and is unenforceable. That’s obviously just an analogy and I’m not trying to start an argument on who’s right, just want to point out that “the MW didn’t force them to sign” may not be an especially compelling argument.
They could have signed an agreement with CUSA or the AAC. They didn't have to stay in the MW apartment. Your analogy is flawed. It implies they had no other place to live.
@ You assume C-USA and the AAC were interested in making an agreement. I could’ve missed that report, but I don’t remember hearing anything on those two conferences. Even so, analogies don’t need to be 100% right to convey a point.
@@stevedonnie4077 Your analogy implied that PAC schools had to take MW deal and were giving bad options. So what? That's OSU/WSU problem. BYU went independent. They seem to find games while they were independent. The MW didn't owe them games. There are other places to live. If the place you are attempting to live in requires a BJ that's on you, not the receiver of the BJ. Free market. I was sympathetic to OSU/ WSU originally but their moves have turned me off. The better move would've been consolidation, put a fence around the Pacific and mountain time zones, get the new TV deal, then expand east. They chose violence. They split the West in half, and now it's survival of the fittest.
@ Yeah I mean it’s tough to argue with someone who just flatly says “so what?” I can’t make you think that the MW took advantage of a situation in a shady way and I’m not really interested in arguing about how free the market actually is, my point was it may not be as compelling of an argument in court to just say “the MW didn’t literally force them to do that!”
It's hilarious that PAC fans are belittling the MW and some of it’s members. Oregon state and Washington state were left behind and nobody wanted them for a reason. 0 conference football titles in last 20 years between the two of them. Boise will trounce those teams too. The value is in the PAC name, not in the dregs left behind. Some people need a reality check.
Completely agree. The schools in the new PAC (excluding Gonzaga) have overvalued themselves. Even if you accept their arguments about the remaining schools in the MW, the new PAC schools see Utah, BYU and TCU in the mirror. None of these schools are like those 3 former MW schools.
UNLV-25 year member of the MWC, 0 MW Conference titles in Football. Last FB conference title 1994 Air Force-25 year member of the MWC, 0 MW Conference titles in Football. Last FB conference title 1998 Wyoming-25 year member of the MWC, 0 Conference titles in Football. Last FB conference title 1993 New Mexico-25 year member of the MWC, 0 Conference titles in Football. Last FB conference title 1964 2 of those programs are now considered the flagship brands of the MWC and have never won the MW in Football and haven't won a conference title in football in nearly 30 years. So in that context as well as fan support, TV viewership, yes OSU and WSU do have room to talk compared to what is left of the MWC. Can anyone seriously claim that WSU or OSU's path to a conference title prior to this season wasn't consistently tougher than what those 4 have face in their tenure in the MWC?
@@jesterscorner879 So...that we are clear, OSU and WSU had a tougher path than UNLV. The path UNLV had has teams that OSU and WSU wants to build a conference around. Those teams are closer to UNLV than OSU/WSU were to USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington and so on. These near peer PAC schools are doing this so that they can: A) Be away from "dregs" B) Become a Power 5 C) Make more money By that assessment, this is the worst of both worlds. OSU/ WSU were bottom feeding dregs partnering with schools who couldn't elevate the MW with their accomplishments. Accomplishments against schools who are closer to New PAC members than the current PAC members were to their former members. Is that how your statement should be read?
At any point did I or most other fans claim that the PAC ever was going to become a P5? This is about trying to consolidate the best programs outside of the P4 in one conference and there are several programs in the MWC that quite frankly don't contribute in any significant way to the current MWC in terms of on field performance or revenue. New Mexico not only hasn't won a conference title in football in 60 years but their fan attendance for last few years was 16K or below and their TV Viewership numbers aren't impressive even by G5 standards. On the flipside programs like Colorado State, Fresno State and Boise State have all watched their numbers rise off field and their performance on field during their time in the MWC has been better overall than the schools mentioned. As for the argument for elevating the MW? Were TCU, BYU and Utah able to elevate the MW before leaving the conference? NOPE and they are all currently P4 schools. So this idea that the teams leaving were going to somehow raise the MWC up is just plain silly. The fact remains though that if you consolidate a bunch of the better G5 programs in terms of attendance, viewership and general revenue into one conference they are going to make more money than a conference where the bottom end doesn't contribute much.
The Pac?? MW, WCC, BigWest, WAC, Big Sky and anybody else in the West, including old Pac12 schools. ALL need to sit at one table and decide who wants D1 football, D2 football, basketball only, etc, etc. Settle on some new conference alignments that work for everyone. There mutual survival depends on it!
That would be great, but some of these "elitist" universities (Stanford, CAL, USC, UCLA etc...) are more about $$$ and clout. I'd love to see Conferences based on geography again. I guess we can dream.
I do think a lot of problems could be solved by actually enforcing a minimum attendance policy. Technically the NCAA requires a minimum of 15K average but they don't enforce it. I would say that at this point a 20K average over a 5 year period should be required for an FBS program.
But the PAC agreed to paying $10 million a year for a scheduling agreement then the MW raised it to $30 million. I think that is what lead to the split.
PacX is stronger. They could just add Texas State and get on down the road, or also add La Tech or NMSt, or both. This is not to mention : Toledo AppSt Marshall Ohio UConn (ask again with above on board) Texas State Ga State Coastal Carolina Maybe: FIU Get a great media contract, then go after the AAC schools.
Duress is nonsense. A conference like the MAC would have jumped at the opportunity to schedule Washington State and Oregon State for a number of their programs and probably would have done it just to make money as their programs were not in jeopardy of being poached to the Pac-#.
There could have been more value for both conferences, if let’s say they merged and made a conference with relegation, with the PAC acting as the higher division (bc of strength of brand) with more revenue per school and the Mountain West acting as the lower division, and having initial rankings representative of standings over let’s say the last five years or so. For football (or all sports) maybe the lowest standing in the PAC playing the highest standing in the Mountain West from the previous season in the final conference game of the next season to determine relegation (meaning the mountain team would need to be consistently good for two seasons to get relegated up). That variance in revenue may be brutal for athletic departments, but they would have time to prepare (2 years). I don’t think (for the new PAC teams) that a straight up merger into a typical conference would have been better than what they are getting now. A conference with relegation would have been interesting, but that’s not what we are gonna get.
That would only be more valuable to the MW schools left behind and it’d add a layer of complication for how a college would prepare a budget with payouts that can change.
@ There is some value in the conference having more “inventory” in # of teams for media providers to utilize, media interest in the relegation, avoiding the legal battle, etc., but in the end you are probably right about that.
The PAC will most definitely be better than the Mountain West. There’s really no argument about that. Which will also bring a much higher TV deal which is what this whole game of chess is about. Any objective person looking at the schools in each conference could see that: PAC: Washington State Oregon State San Diego State Fresno State Boise State Colorado State Utah State Gonzaga (Basketball only) Mountain West: Wyoming Hawaii San Jose State New Mexico UT El Paso Grand Canyon (Basketball only) UNLV Air Force UC Davis (Basketball only) Northern Illinois (Football only) The PAC isn’t done with expansion but it doesn’t really matter at this point who they add (Texas State? Sac State? UTSA? North Texas?). They’re objectively better than the Mountain West.
The people claiming the conferences should just merge aren't taking a closer look at why this occurred in the first place. The schools leaving account for a combined total of 17 MW Titles in Football, the entire remaining MWC accounts for just 1 (San Jose State won the COVID title in 2020). Let's take a look at a few other things shall we: UNLV-25 year member of the MWC, last conference title in football 1994 Air Force-25 year member of the MWC, last conference title in football 1998 Wyoming-25 year member of the MWC, last conference title in football 1993 New Mexico-25 year member of the MWC, last conference title in football 1964 Add in things like 4 remaining MWC programs that can't manage 18K home attendance averages for several years running, abysmal TV Viewership numbers, etc. and it's pretty clear why the 5 are leaving and why the other 2 schools want no part of a conference with those who contribute significantly less to the value of the conference.
Drop the should have just merged the leagues together. It's all about football. NM, San Jose, Hawaii, and recently Wyoming aren't gonna get the networks excited. UNLV would be a good add.
The Pac 7 doesn't have a leg to stand on here. They made unfair offers to teams that were contractually obligated to a different conference--the literal definition of poaching. This is one of those times when we need a "You gotta be shittin' me" defense. The MW ought to go further and sue the 5 schools, also, just to be spiteful and make em rack up legal fees.
You’re assuming the offers were uniquely unfair compared to any other time teams move conferences, and you’re assuming a poaching penalty is valid in the first place. Not trying to argue about which side is right or wrong, but you’re not making a good argument considering the case revolves around the legitimacy of poaching penalties in the first place. As a PAC fan though I’d love to see the MW try your approach.
True for this past season but look at their TV Viewership, home attendance averages, ect. over the last several years. They definitely bring more to the table for a media deal than UNM.
Regarding the PAC-12's claim they signed the scheduling agreement with the MWC "under duress" - Bullshit! There were 118 other D1 FBS schools to schedule games with in 2024 - now, the MWC was the MOST convenient place to get games, but it wasn't the ONLY place. The PAC-12 could've schedule games ad-hoc with the AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. etc. etc. I think the argument that "we were backed into a corner by the MWC blah blah blah" will be seen as self-serving and incorrect. It also seems that it will be shown the PAC-12 were not dealing in a forthright manner with the MWC from the get-go. I think discovery could uncover the PAC-12 NEVER had ANY intention of ever paying the poaching fees and I'm certain that PAC-12 legal counsel has been telling the five departing MWC schools "Don't worry about those exit fees, we'll get those declared uneforceable as well, here's how we'll do it..." The best result for the enforcement of contract law and the rule of law is that the PAC-12 and the departing schools lose their cases and resolutely so.
@@JohnOdermottNeither did the 5 departing MW schools or Gonzaga. Nothing against the MW schools that remain there, but it’s disingenuous to act like the conferences should’ve simply merged as if there wasn’t a reason the PAC8 didn’t want that.
@@JohnOdermottit’s laughable when people talk like Oregon state and Washington state are big dogs. There is a reason they were left behind and nobody would take them!
@@stevedonnie4077 Agreed. The 5 schools leaving have won a combined total of 17 conference titles in football during their membership in the MWC. On the flipside the members remaining have a combined total of 1 title won by San Jose State (won the short COVID season in 2020) to show for the whole conference. 4 remaining schools haven't won a conference title in roughly 30 years, 4 remaining schools haven't managed to crack the 18K mark for home attendance in years and have equally poor TV Viewership numbers.
JY and Steve;
Great discussion, thank you!
I am sooo tired of hearing the MWC/Pac12 should have merged and would have been a better conference. Everyone knows that the Pac12 did NOT want to be affiliated with remaining MWC schools which, quite frankly are low value.
Like both of you, I don’t believe this will be dismissed.
I don’t believe that the MWC wants any part of this case going to trial, as I am sure the Pac12 holds the “smoking gun” that will blow up in the face of the MWC! The MWC will not want any part of discovery.
I want not bet against the Pac12 attorneys who shredded the other 10 Pac12 schools in the original case in Washington.
In the end, in my opinion, the Pac12 will win based on the Sherman Antitrust Act OR there will be a settlement for a much lower amount.
Thanks for continuing to cover this legal case.
Don't agree with the "they should have just combined and would be a strong conference" point. They'd be a bloated conference with a lot of fat. The problem with the MWC was half the schools were investing and taking it seriously and half were trying to get by Sun Belt style. The teams that left (largely) are the teams that want to take football seriously and try to compete at a high level.
Agreed. The very fact that the 5 programs leaving account for 17 MW Titles in football and the entire remaining MWC only accounts for a combined total of 1 puts a major spotlight on the disparity. Add in things like 4 of the remaining MWC programs that can't consistently average 18K in home attendance, have equally poor TV viewership numbers and it's a clear case of separation between the top and the bottom.
Exactly
Just spending a lot of money on football doesn’t correlate to winning games. IE: Northern Illinois spends 1/4th to 1/2 of what the new PAC-12 schools spend and the Huskies W-L record over the past fifteen seasons is 118-76 with 12 bowl appearances including an appearance in the Orange Bowl
@@markcarbonaro6524 No, but it does often generate more media revenue, better recruiting, ability to recruit and retain a quality coaching staff and ensure that the program continues to stay in the black from a financial standpoint (ie fan attendance, merchandise sales, donations) Northern Illinois has done a great job on a tiny budget, but ultimately the biggest reason they are leaving the MAC is because they can no longer support their athletics department with what they are currently getting. You can definitely do more with less, but there is a point where you simply can't maintain, let alone build without additional funding and expenditures.
@@markcarbonaro6524 Correct, and NIU has done a great job with a shoestring budget, BUT even they recognized that they couldn't continue on MAC revenue if they want to move forward. You can definitely do more with less but at some point if you want to grow you need more revenue and more investment. This is where there is a rift between the programs staying and the programs leaving. The ones leaving by and large want to push and grow and develop, while most of the remaining programs are content to keep doing what they have done for the few decades and call it good.
Steve, I'm glad to have you back . Hope you had a wonderful time while you were away.
I agree with Steve, wait until the judge tips his hand.
Great insight!
The dynamic duo rides again!
Giddy up!
We don’t know that Wazzu and Oregon State “went to” the Mountain West asking for a scheduling agreement. I distinctly recall that Gloria Navarez went to Pullman and visited with Kirk Shultz and Pat Chun, so it might have actually been the other way around. I think Gloria saw an opportunity to add WSU and OSU to the Mountain West (which is what she ultimately wanted) and she was trying to woo them in the beginning. When it was clear they weren’t necessarily interested in that, she took advantage of the impossible situation they were in. The PAC 2’s only other option would have been basically to cancel their football season since they were only left to create a football schedule in about 6 months or less. It’s clear that Gloria faught tooth and nail to squeeze the PAC 2 into submission and when that didn’t work, she resorted to doing everything she could to drain their account probably hoping THAT would force their hand.
I think the PAC has a very solid argument about the antitrust law violation by the Mountain West. Why is it the Mountain West slapped poaching penalty fees on ONLY the PAC 2? The schools could have left for any other conference and those conferences wouldn’t have had to pay poaching penalties. Having that be a condition of the agreement was totally irrational and unfair to Oregon State and Washington State. It just screams desperation by Gloria Navarez.
A lot of good points that went completely unaddressed by the video. Judging by the name of the podcast, these guys have a side so I'm not entirely surprised.
The PAC is getting slapped with the poaching penalties because that was a condition they agreed to to get a football scheduling agreement. Mountain west gave them a life line for their 2024 football season but told them that if they took their schools, they would be charged the poaching fee. Otherwise, no scheduling agreement. Thats why other conferences dont have poaching fees. But the PAC did not argue duress, they argue anti trust.
@@TylerStout35 OK. That’s your opinion, but that’s not an accurate assessment of context or situation that led to the lawsuit.
@@TylerStout35The PAC filing from September does argue that the poaching penalty was imposed while the PAC was under duress. It’s literally in the first paragraph of the introduction.
@@TylerStout35 The thing that may come back to bite the MWC in all this was that they doubled the fee for the scheduling agreement for 2025. This means the PAC2 had no choice on short notice to either pay through the nose to play the MWC for one more season, pay way over the top for poaching fees or be forced to have no sports in 2025, which is a non-starter for any Division 1 college sports program.
Most importantly, the Mountain West remains the NCAA's best coed volleyball conference.
I’m not a lawyer so I’m not positive how this works in the courtroom, but something that wasn’t directly mentioned that I think will be important in court is that the anti-trust isn’t just a PAC vs MW thing, it involves the MW restricting their own schools from leaving for a specific conference.
Again, not a lawyer, just making an observation about who’s involved and what may be brought up since so often it’s framed as a conference vs conference thing.
By the way, I notice JY refusing to bring up that Gloria was upping the scheduling deal from 14 million in 2024 to 30 million in 2025. I believed that is what forced the break between the two.
Agreed. Look at the options 1) Pay through the nose to play a G5 league 2) Get slapped with Massive Poaching fees for trying to rebuild your conference 3) Kiss your sports goodbye for 2025 4) Take a hit to the value of your brand by joining the MWC with a minimum of 4 programs that can't even get 18K home attendance and have TV numbers that wouldn't be impressive even by C-USA standards.
BS! The pac 2 needed to bring schools in by 2026 to remain a conference. Even if the contract remained the same, that would bring them to the end of 2025 and less than a year to build the conference where at that point exit fees for the MW members would've been $34M+ per school, which would've made it a lot less likely they would've joined.
I hope this gets settled soon. I want the Pac 7 to get on with expansion, new tv contract and becoming the clear cut 5th best conference........ if they add the 4 from the AAC along with U Conn, St. John's, St. Mary's and one other BB only school, that is about the best possible outcome.
Throw in Crieghton centrally located great schools eats travel for Texas state / hopefully the others
Great basketball *
Agreed, pick up Tulane, Memphis, Texas State as all sports, along with Creighton, UConn, St Mary’s for basketball….scary good
PAC is spending 💰 it will show in play on the field and facilitaties and when TV deal gets bigger than the AAC Memphis Tulane & Texas St Will get them to 12
Thank you for the balanced analysis.
The PAC2 received $50 Million from the departing 10 schools or $5 million a school. The MWC wants $55 Million for 5 schools or $11 Million a school. In essence the MWC thinks BSU, FSU, SDSU, CSU and USU are worth more than twice USC, UCLA, UW, UO, UA etc. Then the exit fees get added to the poaching fees (separate lawsuit by the departing MWC teams against the MWC). If the MWC does prevail I still see these fees getting greatly reduced which is all the PAC wants and therefore "wins". In addition, the teams the MWC has added, prevent a merger of the two conferences as the MWC has hurt itself with the new schools they have added.
Agreed. I dont see how the damages to the MW amount anything higher than the exit fees. You might even argue the damages are less still if they get a good tv contract and considering theyve already reloaded on members.
And,I've yet to see any theorizing on how they get around the whole "double dipping" argument.
The PAC had NO exit fees because the TV deal had expired. The money they got was money that was owed to them from the TV deal, CFP/Bowl money and NCAA tourney credits.
The PAC 12 cried when those schools left and charged them, well the MWC should do the same and make them pay.. Good for the MWC
@@robarguello6895 The MWC's TV Deal also expires in 2026 when the 5 teams are leaving.
@@jesterscorner879 So? The exit fees are not tied to the current TV deal being in place. It's based on actual payouts from the year prior to their exit.
Wasn't keeping UNLV and Air Force in the MW contingent on distributing all the exit and poaching fees? If PAC12 wins the anti-trust case and poaching fees are unenforceable, will the MW still be able to keep it's promise to UNLV and Air Force? In other words, if the MW loses in court, they could also be losing membership.
That is a real factor here. If they can't make good on their promises, UNLV and Air Force have a legitimate out (as technically so do the remaining members of the MWC).
Good point.
The MOU has certain payouts, yes.
It is one of the reasons why UNLV keeps getting brought up.
If UNLV & Air Force were to leave for Pac-12. MW would likely add Texas State & NM State as backfill.
@@jackmatheson4671 It's very unlikely that Texas State would join the MW as they have already turned them down and even less likely after the 2 most valuable remaining brands bolted. NM State would be a possibility at that point but UNM sure wouldn't be happy.
Looks like the Pac -12 is in a good position and will not have to pay. Combine that with the 5 leaving schools also not paying the full amount of exit fees and you get a hamstrung MW that can't afford to pay AFA and UNLV the millions to get them to stay. As a result UNLV moves to the Pac with AFA moving to the ACC. Eek for the MW.
It doesn't look like that at all. Whack Pac will be paying all the fees, MWC wins.
I think you are right on AFA to ACC, along with the other 2 academies, Army/Navy, and USF, Tulane, Rice, maybe Tulsa and maybe UConn.
AF doesn’t want AAC travel schedule. If UNLV & or AF leave they just backfill with Texas State & NM State.
@@ABQREDorGREEN We'll just have to wait and see, but I won't be surprised if the MW doesn't come close to getting the tens of millions it think it's going to get.
@@joechurch7023 Agreed. It will be a decent chunk of change but no where near the current projected figures.
Like everyone else here, I'm just going to wait and see how this plays out. It's up to both sides of this issue to come up with 1000% concrete evidence of what they're claiming to be the case. Someone is telling the truth, and someone is, only at best, telling partial truths.
Whatever a party claims, they need concrete proof. Can't just rely on words alone.
Making a schedule for the 2025-26 season isn't the same they had almost 2 years to find teams to play. When they signed the agreement with the MW, they had already been turned down by the big 10, acc and big 12 and less than a year to schedule opponents for every sport. There is a reason it was only a one year agreement.
@@shaunculp4221 people forget we also got turned down by the AAC
The agreement was announced in December. At that point the PAC did not have time to go find something else and to say they did is completely unrealistic.
The earliest they could have possibly begun putting together a schedule is September when Cal and Stanford announced they were leaving but they still had a suit against the leaving members that didnt resolve until December.
So unless this lawsuit gets to discovery (which we all know it wont) we won't find out when negotiations started or when the poaching penalty was introduced. Id be more inclined to believe that the negotiations didnt start until there was a likely chance the pac was going to win their lawsuit against the leaving members and ive no idea when the poaching penalty was introduced.
I think it's unfair of you guys to assume they were not under duress when there is so much we do not know.
There are 4 other G5 conferences. Are you telling me that it was impossible to make a one year deal for games with one or two of them? I don't buy it, if I was the judge I would want proof that they reached out and were rejected by the MAC or Sun Belt. Or that they demanded more.
@drgat6953 well think about it for a minute. They had yet to win the pac lawsuit and money was tight.
Scheduling that late in the season requires a willing partner who wouldve had something to gain. It's not done out of the goodness of one's heart. Both the MW and AAC viewed the PAC as an opportunity.
We do know that there were preliminary talks with the AAC. In November the AAC comissioner said they had conversations with the PAC2 and that his schools didnt think the travel costs made sense. And at this time we don't know if the PAC had enough funds cover their added travel costs for 1 or 2 seasons.
By November/December it was too late to find another conference to work with. The transfer portal opened a day after this deal was announced (may have even been prior to it being finalized). OSU would likely have had too cancel the 2024 season if it hadn't been announced when it was.
I imagine every tire was kicked. But I don't know if CUSA, the sunbelt, or the MAC were contacted. We might find out if it does get to discovery.
@rumblingcds I agree we will find out in discovery but if we find out that the MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA were reached out to. If they were not I think that torpedoes their case.
As for the AAC and travel costs I think that was for all sports, as we know they took care of that with the WCC. In football the WSU and OSU have chartered flights for years. The cost difference between a 3 hour flight and a 5 hour flight isn't material.
@@drgat6953 i don't think it torpedoes their case. They could argue they were going down the line of conferences ACC, Big12, AAC, MW and simply ran out of time to explore other options by late November. Timing is what really matters.
We were at the time trying to find a home for all our sports. If the MW wouldnt have charge so much we probably would have parked everything we could in the MW.
The fact remains that the ACC, the Big12, and the AAC turned the remaining PAC down and the MW wasn't the only option the PAC explored.
To all those talking about a Merger: that's what the PAC-12 offerred to the MW. But Gloria Nevarez rejected it because it likely meant the bottom feeders of the MWC would be jettisoned, her job called into question, and/or the bottom feeding schools would have unequal revenue sharing. MWC would have also been dissolved in favor of PAC branding. And her ego would be bruised.
MWC cannot afford to lose this case, the PAC can because they would just add Texas St as their 8th member. If the MWC were to forfeit the poaching fees, UNLV is out the door, I wouldn’t be surprised if UTEP goes back to C-USA and Air-force were to join the AAC.
That's not true at all, the majority of the monies being paid to the schools are from the Exit fee's of the Deviant schools. The monies from the poaching fee's are simply bonus monies that will benefit the schools. Any way you slice it, the schools that stayed in the MWC are reaping lots of cash no matter what due to the terrible leadership of the Whack Pac.
NIU might be in a tough spot but maybe they can follow UTEP to C-USA.
If UNLV leaves they still have 8 members. AF does not want the AAC travel schedule. UTEP seems thrilled with MW membership.
You're forgetting the $85M+ in exit fees. If the MW, for whatever reason, loses that case then sure your doomsday scenario might play out. If the pac wins both then exit fees are obsolete, which won't bode well for the pac either.
@@jackmatheson4671 UTEP is thrilled for 3 reasons 1) The MWC is a better geographical fit than C-USA 2) They have history with many MW programs from the old WAC 3) Literally anything is an improvement from C-USA's pathetic media deal ($800K a year per school). That means the MWC could drop to $1.5 million per school and they would still nearly double their revenue over C-USA. If UNLV leaves it means that the MWC can't make good on it's promises for the extra cash (which also was a big part of why Air Force stayed) and Air Force would likely bolt for the AAC since the MWC would effectively done from a competitive value standpoint.
Resume: 22:00
Quick slightly off topic question. Since Boise State is leaving the MW they don’t get any media deal money for this season right? If that is true does it apply to the Fiesta Bowl distributions?
@@scottyclayton2501all members will get thier cut for 2024 and 2025. However the MWC can withhold money to pay for the exit fees. Same applies for cfp and ncaa credits for 24/25.
Yes, the MWC is currently withholding bowl payouts from the departing members to hold them hostage for the exit fees. I don't see that being in the MWCs favor in this case.
@jesterscorner879 The deviants are demonstrating that the don't want to fulfill their obligations, the MWC is holding their feet to the fire, as they should. Simple stuff.
First off, I am not an attorney so I am not going to give an opinion on who has a leg to stand on and why or why not. Just keep in mind that the staying 2 in the PAC12 were left high and dry by the rest. It's not like the 10 traitors reached out to OSU and WSU to help them fill their upcoming 2024 schedules. Their options for filling their schedules were very limited. The 5 MWC schools now joining the PAC12 announced in 2024 and won't be doing so until 2026. The PAC12 made their intentions clear that they would rebuild and maintained that stance despite MWC wanting a different outcome. So the MWC is not under duress with 2 years before the switch and then another 2 years following that to reach the 8 required members. The MWC is holding thwir members hostage with the exit fees. I don’t see the PAC12 coming out unscathed but I do think the fees MWC is expecting is ridiculously exorbitant. I would have loved a merge myself.
How are they holding them hostage? Just pay the exit fees (which were approved years ago by the MWC board aka the University Presidents) and you're free to go.
@robarguello6895 it's real simple. If the MWC is so great their shouldn't be exit fees and poaching penalties. Their current media deal ends in 2026. Schools should want to be there and not be forced to stay there.
@@IknowthatBrent Every conference has exit fees. Also, the MWC exit fees aren't tied to the TV deal (unlike the old PAC), they're based on the average conference distribution (from the year prior to a schools exit) which includes not only TV money, but all revenue from the conference (CFP, tourney credits, bowl payouts, sponsorships, etc).
@@robarguello6895 the PAC12 did not have exit fees.
@@robarguello6895 $19 million per school for a 2 years notice plus $55 million in poaching fees for a conference that pays it's members a whopping $4 million a year for it's pathetic TV deal? I'm sorry but that is beyond excessive. That amounts to roughly $30 million dollars in exit/poaching fees per G5 school.
How many times in the past have two conferences created a scheduling agreement? Big Ten/ACC challenge? And how many times previously were those scheduling agreements made where it was foreseeable that one conference was looking to recruit member schools from the other conference?
Also, remember the two Pac-X schools were talking to the AAC also. So they were not under duress. They had options.
I like the fact that you are using the PAC-X moniker… I’ve been pushing that.
But if the ACC had offered, none of this would be an issue.
ACC didn’t want OrSt or WashSt.
They are a good fit in the Big12. I don’t know what happened there unless the corner4 cockblocked them.
@@petermark1766 also also remember that the AAC announced publicly that they turned the PAC down in November.
The PAC wanted no part of certain schools in the mwc. The mwc didn’t want to leave those unwanted schools hanging without a conference. The PAC needs to get their TV deal done! If they are in the $15M range, they likely get the American 2 or 4 schools.
LOL 15M, they'll be lucky to get 6M.
Not to be crass, but isn’t saying “they weren’t forced by the MW to sign” sort of like a landlord adding a mandatory BJ clause to my lease when he knows my choice is either that or homelessness?
Like yeah sure I signed and yes he didn’t literally force me to sign, but he obviously took advantage of the known circumstances to add a clause that arguably had nothing to do with the lease and is unenforceable.
That’s obviously just an analogy and I’m not trying to start an argument on who’s right, just want to point out that “the MW didn’t force them to sign” may not be an especially compelling argument.
They could have signed an agreement with CUSA or the AAC. They didn't have to stay in the MW apartment. Your analogy is flawed. It implies they had no other place to live.
@ You assume C-USA and the AAC were interested in making an agreement. I could’ve missed that report, but I don’t remember hearing anything on those two conferences.
Even so, analogies don’t need to be 100% right to convey a point.
@@stevedonnie4077
Your analogy implied that PAC schools had to take MW deal and were giving bad options. So what? That's OSU/WSU problem. BYU went independent. They seem to find games while they were independent. The MW didn't owe them games. There are other places to live. If the place you are attempting to live in requires a BJ that's on you, not the receiver of the BJ. Free market.
I was sympathetic to OSU/ WSU originally but their moves have turned me off. The better move would've been consolidation, put a fence around the Pacific and mountain time zones, get the new TV deal, then expand east. They chose violence. They split the West in half, and now it's survival of the fittest.
So you are saying that your Landlord is forcing you to watch only the Episodes of "MASH" with Mike Farrell on them? Interesting.😂😏👩⚕️👨⚕️🏥🚑📺B.W.
@ Yeah I mean it’s tough to argue with someone who just flatly says “so what?” I can’t make you think that the MW took advantage of a situation in a shady way and I’m not really interested in arguing about how free the market actually is, my point was it may not be as compelling of an argument in court to just say “the MW didn’t literally force them to do that!”
It's hilarious that PAC fans are belittling the MW and some of it’s members. Oregon state and Washington state were left behind and nobody wanted them for a reason. 0 conference football titles in last 20 years between the two of them. Boise will trounce those teams too. The value is in the PAC name, not in the dregs left behind. Some people need a reality check.
Completely agree. The schools in the new PAC (excluding Gonzaga) have overvalued themselves. Even if you accept their arguments about the remaining schools in the MW, the new PAC schools see Utah, BYU and TCU in the mirror. None of these schools are like those 3 former MW schools.
UNLV-25 year member of the MWC, 0 MW Conference titles in Football. Last FB conference title 1994
Air Force-25 year member of the MWC, 0 MW Conference titles in Football. Last FB conference title 1998
Wyoming-25 year member of the MWC, 0 Conference titles in Football. Last FB conference title 1993
New Mexico-25 year member of the MWC, 0 Conference titles in Football. Last FB conference title 1964
2 of those programs are now considered the flagship brands of the MWC and have never won the MW in Football and haven't won a conference title in football in nearly 30 years. So in that context as well as fan support, TV viewership, yes OSU and WSU do have room to talk compared to what is left of the MWC. Can anyone seriously claim that WSU or OSU's path to a conference title prior to this season wasn't consistently tougher than what those 4 have face in their tenure in the MWC?
@@jesterscorner879
So...that we are clear, OSU and WSU had a tougher path than UNLV. The path UNLV had has teams that OSU and WSU wants to build a conference around. Those teams are closer to UNLV than OSU/WSU were to USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington and so on. These near peer PAC schools are doing this so that they can:
A) Be away from "dregs"
B) Become a Power 5
C) Make more money
By that assessment, this is the worst of both worlds. OSU/ WSU were bottom feeding dregs partnering with schools who couldn't elevate the MW with their accomplishments. Accomplishments against schools who are closer to New PAC members than the current PAC members were to their former members. Is that how your statement should be read?
At any point did I or most other fans claim that the PAC ever was going to become a P5? This is about trying to consolidate the best programs outside of the P4 in one conference and there are several programs in the MWC that quite frankly don't contribute in any significant way to the current MWC in terms of on field performance or revenue. New Mexico not only hasn't won a conference title in football in 60 years but their fan attendance for last few years was 16K or below and their TV Viewership numbers aren't impressive even by G5 standards. On the flipside programs like Colorado State, Fresno State and Boise State have all watched their numbers rise off field and their performance on field during their time in the MWC has been better overall than the schools mentioned. As for the argument for elevating the MW? Were TCU, BYU and Utah able to elevate the MW before leaving the conference? NOPE and they are all currently P4 schools. So this idea that the teams leaving were going to somehow raise the MWC up is just plain silly. The fact remains though that if you consolidate a bunch of the better G5 programs in terms of attendance, viewership and general revenue into one conference they are going to make more money than a conference where the bottom end doesn't contribute much.
Motions to dismiss never get granted
The Pac?? MW, WCC, BigWest, WAC, Big Sky and anybody else in the West, including old Pac12 schools. ALL need to sit at one table and decide who wants D1 football, D2 football, basketball only, etc, etc.
Settle on some new conference alignments that work for everyone. There mutual survival depends on it!
That would be great, but some of these "elitist" universities (Stanford, CAL, USC, UCLA etc...) are more about $$$ and clout. I'd love to see Conferences based on geography again. I guess we can dream.
I do think a lot of problems could be solved by actually enforcing a minimum attendance policy. Technically the NCAA requires a minimum of 15K average but they don't enforce it. I would say that at this point a 20K average over a 5 year period should be required for an FBS program.
Im not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. PAC signed and agreed to contract.
But the PAC agreed to paying $10 million a year for a scheduling agreement then the MW raised it to $30 million. I think that is what lead to the split.
PacX is stronger. They could just add Texas State and get on down the road, or also add La Tech or NMSt, or both.
This is not to mention :
Toledo
AppSt
Marshall
Ohio
UConn (ask again with above on board)
Texas State
Ga State
Coastal Carolina
Maybe: FIU
Get a great media contract, then go after the AAC schools.
I luv this episode...but my question is....and can you dumb down the answer for me, what is the sherman anti-trust act.
You guys are great. Change your program to the New PAC or something. You're gonna get a lot more views.
Go Broncos!
Deal is a Deal..Pay up Deadbeats
Nice Shirt JY, -"Check your shitter?" "How much did Cousin Eddie pay you to wear it?"
Yessir!
May have worn it for a reason for this one. Litigation is messy!
Duress is nonsense. A conference like the MAC would have jumped at the opportunity to schedule Washington State and Oregon State for a number of their programs and probably would have done it just to make money as their programs were not in jeopardy of being poached to the Pac-#.
There could have been more value for both conferences, if let’s say they merged and made a conference with relegation, with the PAC acting as the higher division (bc of strength of brand) with more revenue per school and the Mountain West acting as the lower division, and having initial rankings representative of standings over let’s say the last five years or so.
For football (or all sports) maybe the lowest standing in the PAC playing the highest standing in the Mountain West from the previous season in the final conference game of the next season to determine relegation (meaning the mountain team would need to be consistently good for two seasons to get relegated up). That variance in revenue may be brutal for athletic departments, but they would have time to prepare (2 years).
I don’t think (for the new PAC teams) that a straight up merger into a typical conference would have been better than what they are getting now. A conference with relegation would have been interesting, but that’s not what we are gonna get.
That would only be more valuable to the MW schools left behind and it’d add a layer of complication for how a college would prepare a budget with payouts that can change.
@ There is some value in the conference having more “inventory” in # of teams for media providers to utilize, media interest in the relegation, avoiding the legal battle, etc., but in the end you are probably right about that.
The PAC will most definitely be better than the Mountain West. There’s really no argument about that. Which will also bring a much higher TV deal which is what this whole game of chess is about. Any objective person looking at the schools in each conference could see that:
PAC:
Washington State
Oregon State
San Diego State
Fresno State
Boise State
Colorado State
Utah State
Gonzaga (Basketball only)
Mountain West:
Wyoming
Hawaii
San Jose State
New Mexico
UT El Paso
Grand Canyon (Basketball only)
UNLV
Air Force
UC Davis (Basketball only)
Northern Illinois (Football only)
The PAC isn’t done with expansion but it doesn’t really matter at this point who they add (Texas State? Sac State? UTSA? North Texas?). They’re objectively better than the Mountain West.
The people claiming the conferences should just merge aren't taking a closer look at why this occurred in the first place. The schools leaving account for a combined total of 17 MW Titles in Football, the entire remaining MWC accounts for just 1 (San Jose State won the COVID title in 2020). Let's take a look at a few other things shall we:
UNLV-25 year member of the MWC, last conference title in football 1994
Air Force-25 year member of the MWC, last conference title in football 1998
Wyoming-25 year member of the MWC, last conference title in football 1993
New Mexico-25 year member of the MWC, last conference title in football 1964
Add in things like 4 remaining MWC programs that can't manage 18K home attendance averages for several years running, abysmal TV Viewership numbers, etc. and it's pretty clear why the 5 are leaving and why the other 2 schools want no part of a conference with those who contribute significantly less to the value of the conference.
Drop the should have just merged the leagues together. It's all about football.
NM, San Jose, Hawaii, and recently Wyoming aren't gonna get the networks excited. UNLV would be a good add.
Agreed. A huge part of the split is for the very fact that certain schools are dragging down the league for football (both on and off field).
The Pac 7 doesn't have a leg to stand on here. They made unfair offers to teams that were contractually obligated to a different conference--the literal definition of poaching. This is one of those times when we need a "You gotta be shittin' me" defense.
The MW ought to go further and sue the 5 schools, also, just to be spiteful and make em rack up legal fees.
You’re assuming the offers were uniquely unfair compared to any other time teams move conferences, and you’re assuming a poaching penalty is valid in the first place.
Not trying to argue about which side is right or wrong, but you’re not making a good argument considering the case revolves around the legitimacy of poaching penalties in the first place. As a PAC fan though I’d love to see the MW try your approach.
@@stevedonnie4077 Yep. I sure am.
Washington state believes they're worth something in football. Bums lost to the mighty Lobos. Ha ha 🤣 😆 😄
True for this past season but look at their TV Viewership, home attendance averages, ect. over the last several years. They definitely bring more to the table for a media deal than UNM.
Regarding the PAC-12's claim they signed the scheduling agreement with the MWC "under duress" - Bullshit! There were 118 other D1 FBS schools to schedule games with in 2024 - now, the MWC was the MOST convenient place to get games, but it wasn't the ONLY place. The PAC-12 could've schedule games ad-hoc with the AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. etc. etc. I think the argument that "we were backed into a corner by the MWC blah blah blah" will be seen as self-serving and incorrect. It also seems that it will be shown the PAC-12 were not dealing in a forthright manner with the MWC from the get-go. I think discovery could uncover the PAC-12 NEVER had ANY intention of ever paying the poaching fees and I'm certain that PAC-12 legal counsel has been telling the five departing MWC schools "Don't worry about those exit fees, we'll get those declared uneforceable as well, here's how we'll do it..."
The best result for the enforcement of contract law and the rule of law is that the PAC-12 and the departing schools lose their cases and resolutely so.
the "pac" is still a thing? go figure
A merger between the PAC-2 and MWC would've been so much easier and then add Gonzaga and GCU for Basketball. $$$$
Oregon State and Washington State had no interest in subsidizing the bottom schools of the MWC.
@@JohnOdermottNeither did the 5 departing MW schools or Gonzaga.
Nothing against the MW schools that remain there, but it’s disingenuous to act like the conferences should’ve simply merged as if there wasn’t a reason the PAC8 didn’t want that.
@@JohnOdermottit’s laughable when people talk like Oregon state and Washington state are big dogs. There is a reason they were left behind and nobody would take them!
@@JohnOdermott
Just like USC and Washington had no interest in subsidising them?
@@stevedonnie4077 Agreed. The 5 schools leaving have won a combined total of 17 conference titles in football during their membership in the MWC. On the flipside the members remaining have a combined total of 1 title won by San Jose State (won the short COVID season in 2020) to show for the whole conference. 4 remaining schools haven't won a conference title in roughly 30 years, 4 remaining schools haven't managed to crack the 18K mark for home attendance in years and have equally poor TV Viewership numbers.